Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby panduranghari » 25 Jun 2017 03:13

Can anyone just give a 10 point precis about the advantage of NSG membership?

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 809
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 25 Jun 2017 04:22

India's regular rejections at NSG has become a joke, the definition of insanity. If China is the road block, we have to change tactics, to change the result. Sort of reminds me of paki pleadings to unkil for predator drones, they only got regular snubs.
1. We have to make it painful for China to be the road block, cannot rely on the US or Russia to push them. I am sure GOI know these pain points better than me.
2. Another tactic would be to push for getting China out of the grouping, if there is a way to do that. Or form a new NSG type group without China as a member.

India is clearly punching below its weight...and needs to get aggressive. Unfortunately, Nehru's ghost lives in Lutyens Delhi, inspite of Modi.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1188
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby ashish raval » 25 Jun 2017 04:44

Why not create another NSG equivalent and invite friendly nations like Australia, US, Japan to it. Make it strictly non China. Eventually everyone will move to new group minus China and original NSG can rest in peace.. I doubt they will have even any will to change rules to make Indian entry easy. I will withdraw from SCO and BRICS as it is of no use to us. India can live with the fact that there are tremendous advances in solar and battery storage technologies which will mean that nuclear power will not be as critical or cheap power supply as it is meant out to be. India should focus on Thorium based reactors perfect it and use it and export it as cheap power generator technology.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 25 Jun 2017 06:43

ashish raval wrote:Why not create another NSG equivalent and invite friendly nations like Australia, US, Japan to it. Make it strictly non China. Eventually everyone will move to new group minus China and original NSG can rest in peace.

The only real problem is that India does not have that kind of clout yet.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 809
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 25 Jun 2017 08:10

All it needs is that the US support a new NSG minus China....but Trump seems to be mesmerized with China at the moment. If the US joins, the rest will follow.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby JohnTitor » 25 Jun 2017 09:10

Actually, it doesn't even need to be that formal. If India signed bilateral deals with every NSG member , it would pretty much negate the need for NSG.

Then we don't need the begging bowl strategy.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 25 Jun 2017 18:03

From my post almost a year ago to this day:

IMO, there are only a few reasons for India joining the NSG:
• The waiver of 2008 can be changed at any time to our detriment. For example, the restrictions on ENR came about in c. 2011. It is true that such decisions are taken on a consensus by the NSG and we will always have a few friends, but one can never predict the future. If we are inside the NSG we can stop the waiver from being derailed, as India is never going to sign NPT unless & until we are recognized as a de-jure nuclear-power because the cut-off date is still 1967. This is purely self-preservation and why not?
• If NSG rules have to be modified, then, we need to be inside it.
• As an aspiring world power, and rightly so too, we need to be in all policy making-bodies and influential groups around the world. This is especially true in nuclear technology where we have considerable and widespread expertise for a very long time
• Last but not the least, IMHO, the fact that the London Club and its evolutionary NSG were created to target us and us only and we would be entering that as a full member without signing the NPT is as close to a de-jure recognition of us being a NWS which has hitherto been only a grudging de-facto recognition by some.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 809
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 25 Jun 2017 21:54

If joining NSG is important to us...the current strategy has not given fruit. It needs to be changed, begging China to let us join will not happen easily. I assume GOI has a strategy, but its not obvious to me. Modi is trying to improve the economy, perhaps that's the long term strategy, which will allow doors to open, but we cant wait 10 years. Everytime China serves as the road block, we must provide them some pain, could be as simple as arming Vietnam for example, over time the cumulative pain will get Chinese attention. Or alternatively, we should stop requesting permission to join NSG and bide our time, until no one can stop us. Our best attempts at providing pain to China is by letting the Dalai Lama visit NE, that is laughable...though the Chinese humour us and make the right noises as if they are severely pained.

Malayappan
BRFite
Posts: 421
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 00:11

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Malayappan » 09 Jul 2017 21:46

NSG Bid - India trying to join Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group

Article says a team from Wassenaar Group visited India. No mention of a formal application done or time frame. PTI piece!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 30 Oct 2017 14:39

Multilateral subjects set to top talks with Italy - The Hindu
A range of multilateral and bilateral subjects are likely to be in focus during the visit of Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni that begins on Monday.

The visit, which comes after both sides managed to contain the diplomatic fallout of the marines crisis, is for a day. Diplomats indicated that India’s global push for the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership and bilateral trade are likely to be on top of the agenda.

During the visit, Mr. Gentiloni will meet with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, following which a number of bilateral agreements are to be signed in the Hyderabad House. Mr. Gentiloni is also scheduled to deliver a lecture at the Observer Research Foundation on Monday evening and hold talks with President Ram Nath Kovind and Vice President Venkaiah Naidu.

Natural partners

Italy’s support for India’s candidature at the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2016 was an important marker in multilateral collaboration and indicated Rome’s long-term commitment to supporting India’s role in the export control regimes.

“Italian supportive role in the EU and NSG will help our cause with the EU-India FTA (Free Trade Agreement) and our bid for NSG membership. Italy and India are natural partners and this partnership must be allowed to take free flight,” said former ambassador to Rome Anil Wadhwa, indicating that the support will boost India’s campaign for membership in the global nuclear suppliers club. India’s bid for membership at the NSG has so far been scuttled by repeated opposition from China.


However, sources indicated that apart from the NSG, India is also seeking Italian support at the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) meeting that begins on Monday in Buenos Aires, where India has been pushing for stringent measures against Pakistan on terror funding issues.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 658
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby ArjunPandit » 31 Oct 2017 03:18

what is italy extracting from us for this deal...??italians are no saints, even their saints are no saints either (but thats a different question)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 08 Nov 2017 18:25

India demands transparency in UN Security Council reform - PTI
India has demanded transparency in the UN Security Council reform process so that the people could know what is preventing the members from translating discussions into a negotiating text for the much- needed revamping of the world body's top organ.

Indian Ambassador to the UN Syed Akbaruddin said that even after almost a decade is over, UN members have not been able to agree on even a document that would be the basis of negotiating reforms.

In his address to the plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, Akbaruddin said there was no greater example of institutional inertia that resisted constructive adaptation than the inability to translate discussions into a text for negotiations.

This is despite 10 years of so-called intergovernmental negotiations authorised by the General Assembly and the continuous annual consideration of the agenda item here since 1993, he said.


"Modern challenges take the concerted efforts not just of Governments, but also of whole societies, and so wider society could be more involved in the diplomatic process. Perhaps, we need to consider options of opening the process, so that others are aware of what is it that stops the current discussions from even beginning on the path of a negotiating text," Akbarruddin said.

"Transparency in the working of diplomats is a useful adaptation that we can consider in this changing world as a pathway to progress," he said.

On the inordinate delay in reforming the UN Security Council, Akbaruddin told members of the General Assembly, that there is "no more vivid reflection" of deepening crisis of multilateralism than the "dysfunctional Security Council", which no longer reflects contemporary realities and hence confronts a crisis of legitimacy and credibility.

"When proliferating transnational threats, deepening economic interdependence, worsening environmental degradation - all call for effective multilateral action - we have fallen short of a substantive response on an issue as important as reform of the Security Council," he said.

"This is a sign that the ageing pillars of the established multilateral order are creaking and crumbling all around us, unable to meet the need for change," Akbaruddin said.

Referring to the agenda of discussion of the UN Security Council reform, the top Indian diplomat said this is indicative of the "lack of even incremental change in our approach to issues of importance", oblivious of the pace of change all around.

"As multilateral diplomats, we are used to punishing processes, but never has a process itself become a punishment, as in this case," he rued.
"If this is the 'new normal', it does not bode well for multilateralism. Never have the normative foundations of multilateral cooperation shown up to be weaker than in this instance," he said.


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 11 Nov 2017 04:57

ICJ candidate Bhandari's re-election bid fails in UNGA, UNSC - ToI
India's candidate for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hit a significant roadblock on Friday, failing to win a re-election bid in both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. Dalveer Bhandari is locked in a deadlock with the British candidate, Christopher Greenwood.

The final decision now rests on a new round of balloting on Monday, which means a weekend of intense high-level political lobbying is in store.

This is India's first big setback this year in winning multilateral governance positions.
But it is important in view of the fact that India, earlier this year, took Pakistan to the ICJ to seek consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been in Pakistani custody over allegations of being an "Indian spy". The final judgments on that will be delivered in December. Pakistan has recently appointed an ad-hoc judge to the ICJ for the case. If Bhandari loses, India will be without its own judge in the court.

Bhandari was elected mid-term last time, so, if elected, he will serve a full term. Officials said the fact that Bhandari's candidature was decided by the government as late as June, when others had firmed up their candidates a year in advance, diminished the chances of successfully lobbying for him. India had to compress a lot of lobbying into a few months, which was tough going because most countries had already pledged their votes. That's how, for instance, the Lebanese candidate, Nawaf Salam, who has been Lebanon's permanent representative in the UN for the past decade, sailed past Bhandari.

India's only satisfaction so far is that it has, as a non-permanent member, been able to hold down a candidate from a permanent member of the UNSC. Greenwood's support dwindled to 76 from 145 in successive rounds of voting. Indian officials are confident they would be able to maintain their lead in the UNGA. The UNSC is a different matter, but here, too, if India can secure about three extra votes, it would tip the scales in its favour.

The UK has always had a judge at the world court since it was established in 1945. The other judges elected by the UN on Thursday evening were Ronny Abraham of France, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia, Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade of Brazil and Nawaf Salam of Lebanon.

The fifth Council and sixth Assembly voting rounds, which were run-offs between Bhandari and Greenwood, resulted in a deadlock. Bhandari won in the assembly and Greenwood in the council. In the final assembly round, he received 115 votes to Greenwood's 76. In the last round in the council, Bhandari received six votes and Greenwood nine.

Bhandari was elected in 2012 to succeed Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of Jordan and he defeated a candidate from the Philippines. Therefore, he was essentially facing Salam, who is also from the region.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1188
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby ashish raval » 11 Nov 2017 05:47

Guddu wrote:If joining NSG is important to us...the current strategy has not given fruit. It needs to be changed, begging China to let us join will not happen easily. I assume GOI has a strategy, but its not obvious to me. Modi is trying to improve the economy, perhaps that's the long term strategy, which will allow doors to open, but we cant wait 10 years. Everytime China serves as the road block, we must provide them some pain, could be as simple as arming Vietnam for example, over time the cumulative pain will get Chinese attention. Or alternatively, we should stop requesting permission to join NSG and bide our time, until no one can stop us. Our best attempts at providing pain to China is by letting the Dalai Lama visit NE, that is laughable...though the Chinese humour us and make the right noises as if they are severely pained.

Absolutely agree here..
We should be forming a New Group on Nuclear compliant nations without any adverse proliferation records and also include nations which seek to develop nuclear technology for future based on research into next generation technology with remit of cooperation among the nations and on sharing some knowledge on advancement too. And guess what, which two nations never qualify for it!! Guessed right it is chicken and pakjab...what happens next when 47 of 48 msg members transfer to next group (along with experts) these 47 nations stop funding nsg for chai biskoot sessions..and eventually no one turns up and the NsG is dead and NCSG is born with India as founding member. We shall commit 100 million initial fund for it.

Thy shall chart own road when there are roadblocks make it paved better and eventually all traffic moves to better roads..

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 14 Nov 2017 16:03

Explained: Dalveer Bhandari's re-election bid to ICJ - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
The ongoing stalemate over the Dalveer Bhandari election in the UN has shown two things — first, the inexorable shift of power to countries like India and second, the extreme reluctance of the ancient regime to accept the change.

In the 70 years of the UN's existence, never has a candidate belonging to the elite P-5 group been absent from the world court.

The battle+ between the last two candidates left in the field, Dalveer Bhandari of India and Christopher Greenwood of the UK is symptomatic of this global tension.

After the last round of balloting, Bhandari logged 121 votes in the UNGA, moving up from 116 in the last round, a tribute to India's sustained multilateral diplomacy. Greenwood reduced his numbers from 76 to 68 [b]{Greenwood should get at least 97 votes}. However, in the UN Security Council, India lags six votes to Greenwood's nine {Bhandari should get at least 8 votes}
.

This number has been unchanged and is important for a couple of things: first, India has not lost the support it has already gathered, and second, the P5 are unlikely to abandon one of their own.

In normal circumstances, the evident momentum in Bhandari's favour should have been able to swing one or two Security Council votes towards him. But the P-5 have not budged from their positions. But the very fact that India, a non-P5 has prevented a sweep by the UK tells of an unfolding inevitability — if not Bhandari, India has shown that the P5 glass ceiling cannot possibly sustain for too long.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has kept up a sustained campaign for Bhandari's re-election, having raised it at various summit meetings with key UNSC members. But as India discovered during the NSG admission process, breaking the status quo will remain an uphill task for some time to come.[/b]

Tweeting on the subject, Shashi Tharoor wrote, "As the UN Security Council(SC) and General Assembly(GA) vote to choose a judge for the International Court Of Justice (ICJ) between Indian and UK candidates, the legitimacy and effectiveness of the UN are at stake. The voice of the GA has been ignored too long." Continuing, he said, "This time a nominee of a permanent member of the Security Council has failed to get an absolute majority of the GA, for the first time in a direct contest to a major UN organ. GA vote has turned into a protest against an unwarranted extension of privilege for 70+ years. P5 lost by 40votes!"


[Thread starts here] As the @UN SecurityCouncil (SC) & GeneralAssembly (GA) vote to choose a judge for the Internat... https://t.co/gs44gmzOKI
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) 1510578548000

2. This time a nominee of a Permanent member of the SC has failed to get an absolute majority of the GA, for the fi... https://t.co/WPKU2La6Wl
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) 1510578783000

3. The election is no longer about the judge or the country he hails from but about the GA standing up against a me... https://t.co/eadHmaXgYX
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) 1510578913000


4. Deeply entrenched interests of a tiny select group cannot be allowed to prevail in areas where such privileges... https://t.co/Qjbst2NJhJ
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) 1510579107000

In order to be elected to the ICJ, a candidate must obtain simple majority in the both the organs of the UN. That is to say, a successful candidate must get 97 votes in the General Assembly and 8 votes in the Security Council. With the impasse on, the decision will be deferred and a consultation has been scheduled in a few days.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Kashi » 15 Nov 2017 06:21

It appears that a formal offer was indeed made to Nehru for a seat at the UN P5 and Nehru turned down the "American bait" :roll:

When Nehru Refused American Bait on a Permanent Seat for India at the UN

Letters between Nehru and India’s ambassador in the US shed light on his stand that while India was “certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the security council,” it would be dangerous for this to come at the cost of China.

:shock: :shock:

An excerpt from one of Nehru's letter to his sister whoa was the Indian ambassador to the US

In your letter you mention that the State Department is trying to unseat China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and to put India in her place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the state department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council. I suppose that a crisis will come during the next sessions of the General Assembly of the UN on this issue. The people’s government of China is sending a full delegation there. If they fail to get in there will be trouble which might even result in the USSR and some other countries finally quitting the UN. That may please the State Department, but it would mean the end of the UN as we have known it. That would also mean a further drift towards war.


Do read the whole article

I wonder what other skeletons are hiding in the closet

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Rudradev » 15 Nov 2017 06:36

US citizen Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of the Liar, is entirely in favour of Indian PMs swallowing "American Bait" when it is detrimental to India's interests... for example Sharm el Shaikh, Thimphu, talks on Siachen/Sir Creek/"joint sovereignty" of J&K with Pakistan.

Only when such "bait" might have benefited India in uncountable ways does he celebrate an Indian PM for turning it down.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 16 Nov 2017 14:29

India poised for bigger role in Commonwealth, to take over UK - Dipanjan Roy Chaudhry, Economic Times
India may be poised to play a leading role in the Commonwealth and take over the mantle from the United Kingdom in a way, as it hopes to set up in the country a secretariat of the grouping of former British colonies.

Prince Charles discussed with his interlocutors during his visit to the country last week the idea of a bigger role for India in the 52-member grouping owing to its benign and non-interfering approach as well as track record, people aware of the matter told ET. A Commonwealth secretariat in India might be on the cards in the future, said one of the persons, who did not wish to be identified.

Experts said that a bigger role in the Commonwealth would be particularly appealing to India because China is not a member of the grouping, unlike many other international forums where China tries to dominate the agenda. However, they said, India needs to guard against Pakistan, which is a member of the Commonwealth and may seek to play the spoilsport at the behest of China, its closest ally.

Pakistan is trying to garner support from certain African members of the Non-Aligned Movement on China’s position on South China Sea disputes, according to the diplomatic community.

India hopes to share its experience in areas such as solar energy, digitisation, trade and investment as part of its wider role in the Commonwealth, said a second person, especially since the country has undertaken several development-oriented and capacity-building projects in many of the Commonwealth nations from the Pacific to the West Indies.

PM Modi is believed to be interested in India taking on a larger role in the Commonwealth and he is expected to attend the Commonwealth summit in London in April 2018. He did not participate in the 2015 Commonwealth summit in Malta. Manmohan Singh did not attend Commonwealth summits in Australia in 2011 and Sri Lanka in 2013, when he was PM.

Experts said the UK is keen on decentralisation in the Commonwealth and wants other member countries to take the lead on various issues and projects. The agenda for the Modi-Charles dialogue was the next year’s summit that the UK is hosting. India has 55% of the Commonwealth’s 2.3-billion population and accounts for 26% of its internal trade.

Having stepped up its engagement with countries in Africa and the Pacific, India would get a platform in the Commonwealth to further its strategic and economic interests as a partner that does not dictate but implements projects, experts said.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 20 Nov 2017 04:52

India goes all out to get Bhandari elected to ICJ - Sachin Parashar, ToI
As the world remains riveted by an epic battle between India and the UK for the post of a judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the government is going all out to thwart a bid by the UK to stall voting at the UN General Assembly where India's candidate Dalveer Bhandari enjoys support of more than 120 countries.

As first reported by TOI on Sunday, the UK is instead looking to invoke a mechanism of GA and Security Council Joint Conference, which has never been used in the history of ICJ, to choose the judge and, in the process, invalidate popular support for Bhandari. The UK's candidate Christopher Greenwood holds on to a slender lead in the 15-member Council and, under the present rules, this is enough to offset the nearly two-thirds support for Bhandari in the GA.

For India, the election has now reached a tipping point and, as India's permanent representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin said on Friday, the election was no longer about an individual. "It is now about whether the outcome of the election of the World Court... that is what it is, the ICJ is the World Court... reflects the sentiments of 'we the peoples of the world'? Does it reflect the democratic spirit of our times? The only gauge of that is the General Assembly of the United Nations,'' he had said.

The UK, which fears that more voting in the GA will only see Bhandari's lead increase, needs nine votes from the Security Council for its proposal to stall the process of voting for the ICJ judge. In the Council, Greenwood has the votes of nine nations but it remains to be seen if the same nine support what India sees as a clearly undemocratic move by the UK.

As Indian officials pointed out, a joint conference, which comprises three members each from the GA and the Council, has never been used in the entire history of seven decades of the ICJ to select a judge. "The only time it was used was prior to the establishment of the United Nations in 1921, when deputy judges for the Permanent Court of International Justice were selected," said an official.

Agency reports from New York quoted official sources on Sunday that UK was playing "dirty politics" to deny Bhandari victory. In all past cases of deadlock, it has always been the candidate with majority in the GA that has gone on to be elected judge at the ICJ.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 658
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby ArjunPandit » 20 Nov 2017 07:31

^^^ Nehru's mistake has yet again come to bite us. I prefer that UK actually uses that clause, for it will give us a stick to beat with for much longer duration rather than a victory which will bury this british cunningness under the carpet after a win

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1746
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby chola » 20 Nov 2017 08:54

Kashi wrote:It appears that a formal offer was indeed made to Nehru for a seat at the UN P5 and Nehru turned down the "American bait" :roll:

When Nehru Refused American Bait on a Permanent Seat for India at the UN

Letters between Nehru and India’s ambassador in the US shed light on his stand that while India was “certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the security council,” it would be dangerous for this to come at the cost of China.

:shock: :shock:

An excerpt from one of Nehru's letter to his sister whoa was the Indian ambassador to the US

In your letter you mention that the State Department is trying to unseat China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and to put India in her place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the state department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council. I suppose that a crisis will come during the next sessions of the General Assembly of the UN on this issue. The people’s government of China is sending a full delegation there. If they fail to get in there will be trouble which might even result in the USSR and some other countries finally quitting the UN. That may please the State Department, but it would mean the end of the UN as we have known it. That would also mean a further drift towards war.


Do read the whole article

I wonder what other skeletons are hiding in the closet


The US would dump the ROC (Taiwan) which at the time was basically a second guaranteed US vote in the UNSC? Highly unlikely to be honest. Nehru and his clan were idiots and worse — his sister as ambassador to the most important nation on earth reeks of nepotism. But the supposed offer from the US cannot be serious.

Again it boils down to the following:

1) PRC was not on the P5 or even in the UN at that point; it was Taiwan and punishing it made no sense to the US network of alliances,

2) Removing Taiwan would have alienated the American-dominated parts of East Asia — Japan, SoKo, Taiwan itself and probably ASEAN as well and in fact would give the PRC leverage over Taiwan since the US was fighting to keep the PRC out of the UN,

3) It took the rest of the nonwestern world to bring the PRC into the UN over US objection, the US did not and would never have sacrificed Taiwan in the UN

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Kashi » 20 Nov 2017 09:36

chola wrote: But the supposed offer from the US cannot be serious.


This is what the article is claiming among other things. Noorani too came up with a "robust" defence of Nehru turning down the "offer". But do recall, now where in Nehru's correspondence with his sister, he expresses the belief that the offer was not serious. He was adamant that India's admission to P5 would be "at the cost of PRC" and that it would be "dangerous".

If he truly felt that US and probably USSR were being non-serious, he would probably have hinted as much in his letter and other correspondences.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 20 Nov 2017 11:32

As Kashi has very rightly observed, Nehru's rejection of offer was premised on the fact that he wanted PRC to have the first right of refusal.

Let me elaborate why I feel the offer was serious.

As Korea heated up in 1950, , Nehru took the initiative to solve the Korean crisis which was precipitated by the brazen attack on South Korea by North Korea with the support of China, by suggesting that China be admitted to the UN in order to defuse the crisis ! As the Korean crisis deepened, Nehru refused to vote for any resolution that criticized China or demanded actions from North Korea. In c. 1951, Nehru refused to attend the San Francisco Peace Treaty meeting because China had not been invited! These brought China and India closer even as China was backstabbing us simultaneously by annexing Aksai Chin and building a Highway through it. So, it is obvious where Nehru's heart lay.

As for the question whether the US would have dumped ROC, stranger things have happened, especially with the US. Closest ally Japan, for whom the US went out of its way in San Francisco in c. 1951 to sign a peace-treaty with it, and use it to change not only the security architecture in Asia but also rehabilitate Japan much to the anger of China, was itself unceremoniously dumped twenty years later when Nixon & Kissinger decided to open up with China and script a new geopolitical relationship. Japan has never fully trusted the US after that even though their proximity, out of compulsion for both perhaps, has continued. That's one of the reasons that Japan is interested in wooing India for its strategic security. The US somersaults are dime a dozen and there is a trust deficit with the US for every country including the Anglo-Saxons themselves.

Besides, we have to look at the context of that time period to understand whether the offer could have been serious or a mere red herring. There was no antagonism between India and the US up until 1954 in spite of Nehru's antics over Korea though he was increasingly being viewed as a troublemaker. It was in c. 1954 that the US-Pakistan Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement was signed, SEATO, CENTO were created, Pakistan was inducted into them, massive arming of Pakistan started etc. In 1950, the NAM was still several years away. In fact, during the last stages of Indian Independence fight, the US had put pressure on the UK to give India freedom. In 1950, Sir Olaf Kirkpatrick Caroe had not yet influenced the US administration about replacing Imperial India with Pakistan for protecting 'western interests' such as the 'wells of power' in the Middle East etc. That was still a few years away. So, in 1950, the Truman administration had probably a neutral (or even a favourable) opinion about India. The US might have even entertained thoughts of getting a counterweight for China on its side, which ROC clearly wasn't.

So, I believe that the offer was serious.

The offer came our way once again in 1956, this time from the USSR. It met the same fate too.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 20 Nov 2017 14:29

UNSC permanent members unnerved by prospect of India's nominee winning ICJ election: Observers - PTI
UNITED NATIONS: The permanent members of the UN Security Council are 'unnerved' by the prospect of India's nominee Dalveer Bhandari winning against Britain's candidate in the election to the last seat of the World Court as it would set a precedent that may challenge their power in the future, observers here feel.

Bhandari and Britain's Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice, the sources say.

The permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, Russia, France and China -- appeared to have rallied behind Greenwood. Britain is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council.

In the 11 rounds of election so far, Bhandari has been receiving support of nearly two-third of the members of the General Assembly, but is trailing by three votes against Greenwood in the Security Council.

The 12th round of elections has been scheduled for Monday.

Britain on Friday in an informal consultation of the UN Security Council members mooted the idea of joint conference mechanism as it feels that this could be their only face saving exit strategy, informed sources said.

As shared with other members of the Security Council during informal consultations, Britain would prefer to stop voting on the ICJ elections after the first round as it fears that otherwise India could well cross the two-third mark. In that scenario it would be very difficult for the UN Security Council stop India's candidate from being elected to the ICJ.

However, the prospect of India winning against a P5 member through democratic means is something that this elite club of veto-wielding countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - are unnerved with, because this would set a precedent that they do not want to be repeated.

"Today it is Britain, tomorrow it could be any one of us" is the argument which has brought all these five countries together, sources say.

"If the one (of the P5) is going to be knocked off today, the other fear that they might be knocked off tomorrow," according to a source.

Such an assessment of the UN insiders is based on informed sources, as voting for the ICJ election in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are based on secret ballots and there is no way to know who voted for whom.


In all the rounds of the election so far, Greenwood has consistently got nine votes and Bhandari five in the Security Council. It is likely that on Monday India might increase its tally.

It is understood that both New Delhi and Permanent Mission of India to the UN have been working overtime to convince the members of the Security Council on the need to go by the voice of the majority of the General Assembly.

But by Sunday evening it appeared that Britain was ready to execute its plan, as per which after the first round of voting they would call for a meeting of the Security Council and would seek a mandate to stop any further round of voting, and would call for adoption of joint conference mechanism, which was last adopted in 1921.

However, this might come as a silver lining for India, sources said.

This is because the Security Council vote to stop further rounds of the ICJ election would be open and not through a secret ballot.

As a result, countries, many of whom have been pledging friendship with India but secretly voting against its candidate would be exposed in the open of raising their hands against India. This is something that members of the Security Council would avoid.


Of the Permanent Five members, the US under President Donald Trump has just come out a 100-year plan of friendship with India and renamed Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region.

Incidentally, hours before the ICJ election, Trump would be meeting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley at the White House.

It is not sure, if Trump plans to weigh in on this issue in favour of India.


Trump has repeatedly called himself as the "best friend of India and Indian Americans" in the White House.

Russia is an all-weather tested friend of India. Over the past several decades, France has emerged as a reliable friend of India. The stand of China on a lot of issues is well known including India's membership to the Security Council and Beijing vetoing a move to designate Azhar Masood as a global terrorist by the UN.

So, it would be quite a surprise, if China favoured an Indian candidate.

"When chips are down, you always get support from developing countries," commented one India watcher at the UN.

The voting in the General Assembly which overwhelmingly favours India is reflective of the new global order, which is not pleasant to the world powers.

Despite best of the British effort, their vote tally in the General Assembly has decreased with every other round of voting.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Vips » 21 Nov 2017 06:26

UK on Justice Dalveer Bhandari’s re-election to ICJ: Pleased to see ‘close friend’ India win.

Britain has congratulated Justice Dalveer Bhandari on being re-elected to the International Court of Justice and said it will continue to cooperate closely with India at the United Nations and globally. Bhandari was today re-elected to the last seat of the Hague-based ICJ after Britain withdrew its candidate from the election. India’s nominee Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York. Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft, in a statement said it decided to withdraw Sir Chris Greenwood as a candidate for re-election as a Judge of the International Court of Justice.

“The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections,” he said. Britain, he said, congratulates the successful candidates, including Judge Bhandari of India. Earlier, it appeared that there was a neck-and-neck contest between Bhandari and Greenwood. “We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates,” Rycroft said.

“If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead. We will continue to cooperate closely with India, here in the United Nations and globally,” he said. Rycroft said that the UK will continue to support the work of the ICJ, “in line with our commitment to the importance of the rule of law in the UN system and in the international community more generally”. Britain’s withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there will not be a British judge on the UN’s most powerful court for the first time in its history.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 21 Nov 2017 06:37

Indian nominee Bhandari re-elected as ICJ judge after Britain withdraws - PTI
UNITED NATIONS: India's nominee to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Dalveer Bhandari was today re-elected to the last seat of the world court after Britain withdrew its candidate from the election.

Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York.

The elections were held after United Kingdom, in a dramatic turn of events, withdrew out of the race for the Hague-based ICJ, thus paving the way for Bhandari's re-election to the prestigious world court.


Bhandari and Britain's Christopher Greenwood were locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the ICJ.

The permanent members of the Security Council- the US, Russia, France and China -- were understood to have been throwing their weight behind Greenwood. Britain is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council.

In a dramatic turn of events, the British Permanent Representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, wrote identical letters to the presidents of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, before the two chambers were scheduled to meet at 3 pm (local time) for the 12th round of voting.

Read out simultaneously by both the presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council, Rycroft said that its candidate Judge Christopher Greenwood had decided to withdraw from the election to the 15-membered ICJ.
He along with Bhandari were seeking re-election for the nine-year term.

In the 11 rounds of voting, Bhandari had got nearly two-thirds of the votes in the General Assembly and in Security Council Greenwood consistently received nine votes as against five for his opponent. This resulted in a stalemate.

As per the letter read out simultaneously in the General Assembly and the Security Council, Rycroft said the current deadlock is unlikely to be broken by further rounds of voting.

As such he announced withdrawal from the race. {That is making a virtue out of necessity. It was clear that when over two-thirds of the UNGA voted for the Indian candidate, an outcome towards which it was moving, the British goose would have been cooked.}
With Bhandari being the only candidate left in the race, the General Assembly and Security Council still went through the formal motion of voting to complete the formalities.

The voting in the General Assembly which overwhelmingly favours India is reflective of the new global order, which is not pleasant to the world powers.

India has been seeking that the democratic process need to be played its full course in both the Security Council and the General Assembly and there should not be an intervention or adoption of a process that has never been used before or the one that undermines the voice of the majority.


This is the first time that only a de-facto UNSC Permanent Member's candidate is in the ICJ and none of the de-jure's.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9295
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby arun » 21 Nov 2017 13:15

Related to the last 3 posts on this thread ..............

Fervent prayer of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan that UK’s Christopher Greenwood beats India’s Dalveer Bhandari for a place on the International Court of Justice, per below link, has come to naught.


UK victory over India at ICJ suits Pakistan

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 21 Nov 2017 14:00

From the above by arun,
He urged Pakistan’s Foreign Office and the Pakistan’s ambassador to the US to put their weight behind the English judge as the victory of an Indian judge, and that too for a period of nine years, may affect the country’s interest.

Now what?

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Vips » 21 Nov 2017 18:54

Gurus, Is it in anyway possible to find which 9 of the 193 General assembly member nations voted against India? (India got 183 out of the 193 votes). Considering China and UK itself voted for India, It would be interesting to find out the name of these inconsequential anti-india entities. I asked for 9 as Porkistan is already counted.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Vips » 02 Dec 2017 04:30

India , gets second highest number of votes, wins election to be in IMO Council for next 2 years.

India polled second highest votes on Friday to remain as a member of one of the councils in International Maritime Organisation (IMO) for the next two years.

New Delhi managed to secure 144 votes of member countries. Germany scored a maximum of 146 votes. This for the first time voting was held for Category-B in the IMO council since its inception. Earlier all 10 members were elected unanimously and India has been a member since 1959.

"India enters the IMO Council under category B having won 144 votes, the second highest in the category. A proud moment for the country," the Indian High Commission in UK tweeted soon after the results were out.

Shipping minister Nitin Gadkari had parked himself in London to address IMOs annual session and raise support during the election. IMO is UN's specialized agency for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships.

Besides India and Germany, the other countries that made it to the list are Australia, France, Canada, Spain, Brazil, Sweden, Netherlands and UAE. Australia and UAE were new entrants in the poll.

Till now Bangladesh and Argentina were members in this category.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 06 Dec 2017 21:39

Can't link India's case for NSG membership with that of Pakistan: Russia - Sachin Parashar, ToI
Even as China continues to stall India's Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership, Russia has come out strongly in support of India saying that India's application cannot be "interlinked" with that of Pakistan and that Moscow is discussing the issue with Beijing at different levels. China has favoured a criteria-based approach for expansion of the 48-member group, which controls international nuclear commerce, instead of one based on merit, in what India sees an attempt to draw a false equivalence between India's case and Pakistan's.

The issue again came up for discussion on Wednesday as Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov met foreign secretary S Jaishankar. "We recognise that at the moment there is no unanimity on Pakistan's application and that the same cannot be interlinked with India's," said Ryabkov, after his meeting with Jaishankar.

This is probably the first time that a top Russian diplomat has publicly drawn attention to the futility of juxtaposing the 2 cases. "We know about the difficulties involved but unlike some other countries, who only speak, we are making practical efforts...we are discussing it with China at different levels,'' he added. Earlier this year, foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had said that India had approached Russia to convince China to drop its opposition to India's membership.

That Moscow doesn't expect China to relent though without a concerted effort from all member states was evident from Ryabkov's remark that he found the politicisation of the issue unfortunate and that other nations needed to play a more positive role for India's membership. He didn't name these nations though. Significantly, as he backed India's case for membership of all export control regimes, Ryabkov said that he expected India to join The Wassenaar Arrangement as early as Thursday. The 41-nation group, of which China is not a member, deals with export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. {This is a significant development, but long expected}

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby Vips » 06 Dec 2017 21:41

India in advanced stage of joining Wassenaar arrangement.

India is in advanced stage of joining Wassenaar arrangement and the decision could come as early as Thursday in what would be an acknowledgment for Delhi's non-proliferation record.

"Wassenaar arrangement…, India could join, as the decision is being taken Wednesday and Thursday. The positive action could be taken tomorrow, fingers crossed. This is an example and reflection of Russia’s unwavering support to India’s membership of international nuclear control regimes," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey A Ryabkov told a select group of reporters after his meeting with Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar here on Wednesday.

"We discussed the issue of NSG and India’s prospective membership during the meeting. Russia is a firm and consistent proponent of India’s membership at control regimes. If everything goes as planned, we will see India being accepted in Wassenaar. We know the particular problems in further processing of India's NSG membership. Russia has been very supportive of india’s impressive and impaccable record in non-proliferation. It is different from some other countries that only speak of support, Russia has been very supportive of india’s impressive and impaccable record in non-proliferation. It is different from some other countries that only speak of support, Russia takes steps to help and actions speak more than word. Difficulties still remain, we are speaking of this to everyone and the Chinese.Pakistan has applied for membership at NSG as well. We recognise the face that there is no prospect for any unanimity with respect to the Pakistani application so it is not possible to interlinkthese two," noted Ryabkov without mincing any words.

In July 2016 India joined Missile Technology Control Regime and has also applied for joining Australia group -- another export control regime. India’s export controls are in line with the Wassenaar Arrangement, one of the four non- proliferation regimes that prohibit the export of items of dual- use technology. In April rhe government came out with a Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment and Technologies (SCOMET) list

The notification came into effect on May 1. Export of dual-use (which can also be used for proliferation purpose) items and technologies is either prohibited or is permitted under a license. In foreign trade policy, dual-use items have been given the nomenclature of SCOMET. Category six of the Scomet list now recommends the Wassenaar Arrangements munitions list and the Wassenaar Arrangement dual-use list items.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 07 Dec 2017 19:10

China says no change in its stand on India's membership to NSG - PTI
China today asserted its opposition to India's membership bid to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), saying there is no change in its stand and efforts were on to forge "consensus" among the 48-member elite nuclear club about the admission of new members.

"China's position on this remains unchanged," Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told media here [Beijing] responding to Russian deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov's remarks in New Delhi yesterday that Moscow was speaking to China for India's membership into the NSG.

"China supports the NSG to follow the principle of consensus through consultation through transparent and fair intergovernmental process to deal with this issue," Geng said.

China, a key member of the NSG, has been stridently opposing India's bid primarily on the grounds that New Delhi is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its opposition has made India's entry into the group difficult as the NSG works on the principle of consensus.

China's repeated stonewalling of India's membership bid in the NSG has become a major stumbling block in bilateral relations.

After India's application for entry into the elite group which controls nuclear trade, Pakistan, China's all-weather ally, too had applied with the tacit backing of Beijing.

Pakistan's application came despite serious allegation of proliferation of nuclear technology by its scientist A Q Khan.

Ryabkov yesterday said that Russia is unwavering in its support to India's membership of international nuclear control regimes and Moscow was speaking to China in this regard.

Asked for his reaction to Ryabkov's comments, Geng said all the members of the NSG supported the two-step approach-to find non-discriminatory solution that applies to all non-NPT countries then on that basis discuss the application of the non-NPT counties.

He said the focus is on some non-NPT countries who hope to join the group in the capacity of nuclear weapons free countries.

"At the same time they will not sign the Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement (CSA) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)" which is mandatory under the NPT, he said.

"In this circumstance if we agree for the above-mentioned applications, it will have two consequences, that is to recognise the nuclear weapons status of the Non-NPT countries. Secondly, it will cause other than nuclear weapons free countries to follow suit not to sign CSA with IAEA," he said.

"This will subvert the NPT and whole international non- proliferation regime," he added.

China suggested that the NSG can pool the wisdom and further explore on this issue and find a solution which can be accepted by all relevant parties and can uphold the international non-proliferation regime with NPT as a cornerstone.

"On this we will further discuss application of non-contracting parties," Geng said.

Asked whether the issue will figure in the Russia, India, China (RIC) Foreign Ministers' meeting to be held in Delhi on December 11, Geng said that the meeting will focus on pragmatic cooperation. At the same time they will exchange views on international issues of common concern.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 07 Dec 2017 20:40

Let us be realistic about the UNSC - Chinmaya R Gharekhan, The Hindu
Our recent victory in the hotly contested election to the International Court of Justice seems to have lifted our spirits as a nation. We are justifiably proud of our success and of the skill and determination with which our diplomacy was deployed. It would be prudent, however, not to interpret this in a way as to raise hopes of a permanent seat in the Security Council.

The UNSC election

The two most prestigious organs of the United Nations are the Security Council and the International Court of Justice. While the Security Council has 15 member states, the ICJ has 15 judges. Election to the UNSC is conducted only in the General Assembly and requires two-thirds majority to get elected. Election to the ICJ is held concurrently in the UNGA and UNSC and requires absolute majority of the total membership in each organ. Veto does not apply for election to the ICJ. India has lost elections to both these organs in the past.

Of the two, the UNSC is by far more important from the national interest point of view. It deals with questions of peace and security as well as terrorism and has developed a tendency to widen its ambit into other fields, including human rights and eventually environment. In addition to the Kashmir issue, which Pakistan forever tries to raise, there are other matters in which India would be interested such as the list of terrorists — Hafeez Saeed for example. Since it is in permanent session, we have to try to be its member as often as possible.

The ICJ is required to represent the principal civilisations and legal systems of the world. The judges sitting on ICJ are expected to act impartially, not as representatives of the countries of their origin. That is why they are nominated, not by their governments but by their national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague. To have an Indian judge at the ICJ, when we have an active case on its agenda regarding our national in illegal custody of Pakistan might be of some advantage, though it would be wrong to assume that the final judgment will go in our favour simply because an Indian is on the bench. He will surely act in an objective manner. We will win because we have an excellent legal case and are ably represented by an eminent lawyer.

There are other bodies in the UN that are not as well known but are important enough to be represented on like the ACABQ (Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions) and the Committee on Contributions. The former consists of 16 members elected by the UNGA on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee of the UNGA dealing with the budget of the UN. Usually, the members are officers of the permanent missions serving on the Fifth Committee. Most often, they are of the rank of first secretary or counsellor; Ambassadors rarely offer their candidatures.

The Committee on Contributions recommends the scale of assessments to the budget and the share of each member. This is a very important function, since the share decided by the UNGA applies to all the specialised agencies, etc. Even a 0.1 % change can make a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have had distinguished persons serving on both these committees, such as G. Parthasarathy, S.K Singh, as well as our current permanent representative, ambassador Syed Akbaruddin. Some stalwarts have also lost these elections. There is also the Human Rights Council; we have had almost continuous representation on it. The U.S. lost the election to it a few years ago; there is widespread resentment against the P-5’s presumption to a permanent seat on all bodies.

The veto question

Primarily at our initiative, the question of Security Council reform, euphemism for expansion, has been under consideration since 1970s. There is near unanimous support for increasing the number of non-permanent seats. The controversial question is about the increase in the category of permanent seats. The rationale for expansion has been accepted in-principle by nearly all, but the difficulty arises when the actual numbers and their rights are discussed.

India, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, has proposed an increase of six additional permanent seats, the other two being for Africa.
The African group is demanding two permanent seats, recognised as reasonable by every member, but there are at least three and perhaps more claimants for the two seats. Then there is the question of the rights of the additional members. The G-4’s initial position was for the same rights as the present permanent members, essentially the veto right. Over the years, they have become more realistic and would be willing to forego the veto right. The firm position of the Africans is that the new members must have the same rights as the existing ones. This is a non-starter.

The larger picture

The P-5 will never agree to give up their veto right, nor will they agree to accord this right to any other country. (France supports veto for additional permanent members.) Also, the general membership of the UN wants to eliminate the existing veto; they will never agree to new veto-wielding powers. Variants of the veto provision have been suggested, such as the requirement of double veto, i.e. at least two permanent members must exercise veto for it to be valid. The P-5 are not willing to dilute their self-acquired right.

Many member-states have been pledging support for our aspiration for permanent membership. This is welcome and should be appreciated; it would come in useful if the question ever comes up for a vote in the UNGA. Several P-5 countries have also announced support. The principal P-5 member opposing us is China. We should not be misled by their ambiguous statements on the subject. It has to be underscored that there is no way that India alone, by itself, can be elected as permanent member. It will have to be a package deal in which the demands of all the geographical groups, including the Latin America and Caribbean group which, like Africa, does not have a single permanent member, will have to be accommodated.

Even if the Americans are sincere in their support for us, they will simply not lobby for India alone; it will be unthinkable for them to try to get India in without at the same time getting Japan also in. It is equally unthinkable, for a long time to come, for China to support Japan’s candidature. The P-5 will play the game among themselves but will stand by one another, as was evident recently at the time of election to the ICJ.

So, we should be realistic. If a permanent seat is not available, there are other proposals on the table. One proposal is for the creation of ‘semi-permanent’ seats, according to which members would be elected for six-eight years and would be eligible for immediate reelection. Given India’s growing prestige and respect, it should not be difficult for us to successfully bid for one of these seats; it might be a better alternative than to unrealistically hope for a permanent seat.

Chinmaya R. Gharekhan is a former Permanent Representative and Under Secretary General in the United Nations

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4962
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby RoyG » 07 Dec 2017 21:06

No other country shits on itself as much as we do. Challenges like this require out of the box solutions. You have to be disruptive and grow your economy. There is no way around it. Being disruptive means that you have political stability, build regional and international coalitions, force yourself into every major club, building up your conventional and nuclear forces, firing a shot every now and then, saying no, throw your civilization's philosophy and values around, ally yourself with two major poles and secretly work against one of them, and wallah you're in.

Now guess what, we are doing all of this and our UNSC seat is inevitable. If a couple members don't let us, we'll become very toxic to them. Given the stakes, I doubt they'll want that.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby ramana » 08 Dec 2017 01:42

What are the benefits of India joining Wassenar?
IIRC WA was created against India in 1980s.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby periaswamy » 08 Dec 2017 05:45

statement by chairman mentions something about NSG

Why is India signing up to new agreements and placing restrictions on itself, when it cannot join groups like NSG? Tying ourselves down so that others don't have to take the trouble? China's notably missing from the Waasenaar group of nations. Website only lists all the restrictions and duties of member nations and does not mention any explicit benefits. Only goal seems to be curtailing spread of dual-use items produced in member states.

- reaffirmed their strong support for robust export controls on a global basis as an important
tool for ensuring international peace and stability and confirmed the continued relevance of
the WA and the importance of adhering to its founding principles in this context;
- continued to exchange information on transfers of arms and dual-use goods and to assess the
risks associated with illicit arms flows to specific geographic regions of concern, including
areas of conflict;
- further underscored the importance of strengthening export controls and intensifying their
cooperation to prevent arms trafficking and the acquisition of conventional arms and dual-use
goods and technologies by terrorists, as an integral part of the global fight against terrorism;
- gave further particular attention to proliferation risks related to Small Arms and Light
Weapons (SALW);
- adopted new export controls in a number of areas, including military explosives and specific
electronic components. Existing controls were further clarified regarding ground stations for
spacecraft, submarine diesel engines, technology related to intrusion software, software for
testing gas turbine engines, analogue-to-digital converters, non-volatile memories and
information security. Some controls were relaxed, such as for mechanical high-speed
cameras and digital computers. For those products, control entries were either deleted, or
performance thresholds were updated taking into account the rapidly evolving capabilities of
civil market products;

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 08 Dec 2017 06:22

ramana wrote:What are the benefits of India joining Wassenar?
IIRC WA was created against India in 1980s.

WA is for conventional arms what NSG is for nuclear, MTCR is for missiles and Australia Group is for chemical weapons.

WA is not created with India in mind unlike NSG. It came into effect in the 90s, IIRC.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 08 Dec 2017 06:31

periaswamy wrote:Why is India signing up to new agreements and placing restrictions on itself, when it cannot join groups like NSG? Tying ourselves down so that others don't have to take the trouble?

periaswamy, the question you raised has been discussed in previous pages several times. The sole superpower, other 'great powers' and arms exporter nations are all there in these four treaties or 'want to be in' in these treaties if they are not already in. We saw one advantage of MTCR immediately after we signed it. So, obviously, there are benefits.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 08 Dec 2017 07:34

Wassenaar Arrangement decides to make India its member - PTI
In a significant development, elite export control regime Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) on Thursday decided to admit India as its new member, which is expected to raise New Delhi’s stature in the field of non-proliferation besides helping it acquire critical technologies.

The decision was taken at the two-day plenary meeting of the grouping in Vienna.

“Wassenaar Arrangement participating states reviewed the progress of a number of current membership applications and agreed at the plenary meeting to admit India which will become the Arrangement’s 42nd participating state as soon as the necessary procedural arrangements for joining the WA are completed,” the grouping said in a statement.

India’s entry into the export control regime would enhance its credentials in the field of non-proliferation despite not being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The WA membership is also expected to build up a strong case for India’s entry into the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Significantly, China, which stonewalled India’s entry into the 48-nation NSG is not a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement.

The Wassenaar Arrangement plays a significant role in promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies.


Its member countries are required to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities which undermine these goals. The aim is also to prevent the acquisition of these items by terrorists.

In June last year, India joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), another key export control regime, as a full member.

Since its civil nuclear deal with the U.S., India has been trying to get into export control regimes such as the NSG, the MTCR, the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement that regulate the conventional, nuclear, biological and chemicals weapons and technologies.

French Ambassador to India Alexandre Ziegler congratulated India on “joining” the Wassenaar Arrangement.

“One more recognition, after MTCR, of the growing role India plays in today’s world,” he said.


In the plenary session, the WA reaffirmed its strong support for robust export controls on a global basis as an important tool for ensuring international peace and stability.

It also adopted new export controls in a number of areas, including military explosives and specific electronic components.

“Existing controls were further clarified regarding ground stations for spacecraft, submarine diesel engines, technology related to intrusion software, software for testing gas turbine engines, analogue-to-digital converters, non- volatile memories and information security,” the grouping said in the statement at the end of the two-day meeting. {So, 'conventional arms control' is indeed a catch-all !! This is therefore a significant treaty}

The next regular plenary meeting of WA will be held in Vienna in Austria in December 2018, it was announced.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 22 guests